Guest Post: Obama Embraces Gay Marriage

Unlike virtually every mainstream media commentator or political talking head I don’t care about Obama embracing gay marriage.

Now I know that a lot of people on the left — disappointed by his banker-friendly, PATRIOT Act-renewing, indefinite-detention-enabling, American-citizen-assassinating regime — are searching for any reason to vote for him, and plausible reason to defend his record. That’s the nature of tribal politics — “anti-war” Democrats will happily protest the Bush war machine, but they seem quiet when Obama is the one using drone strikes to assassinate American citizens without trial. I don’t like Mitt Romney either, but that’s not the point.

Even for those in favour of gay marriage, let’s not forget that Obama is capable of doing absolutely zero to change the law. Want to introduce a law allowing homosexual couples to marry? Good luck getting it through the Republican Congress.

I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to do whatever they like with each other, but the fact that the current push for gay marriage is supported by Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs makes me very suspicious (does he want to sell securitised gay marriage debt?).

It just seems like an easy issue for Obama to posture on, while trampling the Constitution into the dirt.

When it comes to civil liberties, Obama has always talked a good game, and then acted more authoritarian than Bush. He talked about an end to the abuses of the Bush years and an open and transparent government, yet extended the Fourth-Amendment-shredding Patriot Act, empowered the TSA to produce naked body scans and engage in humiliatingly sexual pat-downs, signed indefinite detention of American citizens into law, claimed and exercised the power to assassinate American citizens without trial, and aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers. Under his watch the U.S. army even produced a document planning for the reeducation of political activists in internment camps. Reeducation camps? In America? And some on the left are still crowing that talking about being in favour of gay marriage makes him “pro civil liberties”? Is this a joke?

Here are a few metrics that we should be judging Obama on:

People not in the labour force is spiking:

The public debt keeps soaring and soaring from eyeball-watering multi-trillion dollar deficits:

Meanwhile India, Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Japan have all ditched the dollar for other currencies in new bilateral trade agreements — which lest us forget is America’s biggest export, and the product that keeps goods and oil flowing into America. This is an extremely dangerous time. While we cannot lump Obama with the blame for the entire U.S. economic system — the system we have was accumulated via Bush, and Cheney, and Paulson, and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Brzezinski, and Nixon, and Kissinger, and Johnson, and Roosevelt and Wilson and Lincoln and probably most significantly of all the father of central banking Alexander Hamilton — Obama certainly has not improved matters.

And it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that Romney — who claims he would support the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act, that he wants to attack Iran, and has hired many ex-Bush staffers, as well as winning the endorsement of both Jeb and George H.W. Bush, and bizarrely claiming to want to start a trade war with China — is cut from the exact same cloth as Bush and Obama.

This is a dead election. Here’s hoping that Ron Paul — who continues to pick up delegates in the Republican race even while being ignored by the mainstream media who would rather talk about Obama’s posturing on gay rights — can cause some mayhem.

GODDAMMIT!! I'm SICK of this multiculturalist MUSLIM President ruining this great country. What happened to AMERICAN values? What happened to American TRADITION? The ONLY candidate that stands for freedom, decency and FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION is RON PAUL.

This post is curious to me. Aziz made a rather big deal about using the military to crush riots in the UK last year and now he is pro-civil liberties? I guess he means pro his and speicifically only HIS freedom. I like the article but the hypocrisy is rather breathtaking considering what he advocated across the pond.

1/ I didn't really advocate it, but I did say that if it continued it could be kind of an inevitable response and that previous British PMs would have done it.

2/ When you start smashing stuff up from ordinary shops and homes (I live in the UK, I know the areas, these rioters weren't protesting banks or the government, they were just smashing up their neighbours' property and stealing things) then you are a common criminal and a thug and in my view you must be stopped from destroying other people's property.

3/ Because of 2/ that isn't really a civil liberties issue. You don't have the right to destroy other people's property — quite the opposite, you have a right to be secure in your person and property, which means that if you start destroying other people's stuff, you need to be stopped.

4/ If they had genuinely been anti-banking or anti-government protests it would have been very different. I still don't support destroying your neighbours' property, though.

So you're a 24 year old from the UK, "I live in the UK, I know the areas". Oh yeah, you know the areas? You're no doubt a southern wanker who hasn't ventured further north than Tottenham (in London for those who don't know, where the worst of the riots happened).

I agree with you that the violence was purely civil disobedience and nothing more, pure vandalism and robbery motivated.

But.. You advocated using the "military" to break up the riots? You want the British Army keeping control on British streets? If you think that, and I don't doubt that you do, then you're a sad tosser who doesn't deserve to live in this country. If you think the military on the streets is a good idea then you'd probably feel at home in a few African Republics. Not even Greece has descended to putting the military on the streets.

Your post by the way has a ridiculous sensationalist headline, almost all of it has nothing to do with "Gay Marriage".

You're a stupid little child who has probably never been further away from home than university. Grow up, understand what the military on the streets represents and most importantly of all, get stuffed, preferably anally".

If they put enough really totally batshit crazy stuff here in the comments section, so-called "respectable" people can dismiss any ZH article or comment by saying, "That's the site with the [Nazis/gaybashers/dominionists/communists/whatever-the-fuck-else-you-want-to-use] all over it, right?"

That same tactic has very effectively spread the idea that Ron Paul is a racist.

This incompetent foo is trying to get votes from anybody he can get, first he suckered the black voters in, secondly he caved in to the fat cat bankers (Larry Fink et al) and rich arrogant foos (Warren Buffett) and now he's desperate to promote queerness and get more potential votes. if Bammy wins the november elections, lets just say that theres more queers out there than you think.

Only 2% of the US population is gay. Another 3% MAY be bi, if some slanted studies are to be believed.

BUT, the Mainstream media and Hollywood are 50%+ gay. This was all about solidifying his Hollywood Money and Big Media base.

Back in 2008, some politically-incorrect article pointed out that 58% of NBC News New York staffers were Gay,Bi,lesbian or transgendered. in 2009, the Village Voice called the New York Times Editorial Board "THE GAY MAFIA", because every single one of them was GAY, and radical gay, to boot.

When you begin to understand THAT, you begin to understand why our media has become so biased.

Ron Paul is a Christian and his position on gay marriage confuses many people. It's simple really but most people no longer possess the cognitive ability to understand simple.

Government should not be in the marriage business period. Marriage used to be a private social cultural issue.. not a legal government issue. Today marriage is a contract between three parties, the government being one of them. You are entering into a legal agreement with the government. As long as you accept that then you must accept that government can define marriage any way it wants. It can change the definition at will. Now if you agree with Ron Paul, that marriage should NOT be a government issue, then people are left alone to make any decisions they like about a private matter. Gays could agree to have a private ceremony just as easily as anyone else.

This is how it should be. People are free to live their private lives the way they want and Ron Paul does not have to agree with it.

I happen to hate the idea of the government promoting Gay marriage but I hate the idea of Government promoting much or anything. I also think a gay lifestyle is unhealthy and should be avoided if possible and certainly not promoted as being acceptable in a healthy society but I'm not about to tell gays that they don't have the right to live the way they want.

It should also be known that it is NOT the grassroots gay community who has been promoting gay marriage. It's a top down political agenda.

I'm picking up a strong "anti-gay" vibe from ya. Is that what we're supposed to GET?

Being anti gay is wrong. Fucking another dewd up the butt is where it's at. It's completely normal.. just ask the Jewish owned media and the Jewish controlled department of education. They are pro-gay. That means they encourage children in kindergarten through twelfth grade via official curriculum, to view one man fucking the other man up the ass as a healthy lifestyle choice. .

Clearly its' normal behavior for one man to oil up his penis and insert it in another man's shit hole. If you think otherwise you are throwing out an anti-gay vibe and that just is'nt cool.

For that matter any religious person who thinks that they are right and anybody who doesn't agree with them is a fucking hypocrite. The religious imbecilic idiots who constantly spout their own dogma are the worst, by their very own beliefs in; supreme being(s), son of a god raped virgin, hell and heaven, bloody big boats full of animals landing on a 11000+ feet mountain captained by a very old geezer; and all sorts of buffoonery.

By the way, the Muslims are right, oops I meant the Hindus, oops I meant the Taoists, oops I meant the Christians, oops I meant the Jews, oops, not all of you can be right. If you're not right, and the chances are that you've been brainwashed from birth and you are in a minority then who the hell can know who is right?

Yet you all (American Christians) insist that you have the right to assume you're right and deny human rights to people you don't agree with (gays & marriage).

I hate every last fucking one of you religious simpletons, especially the gay christians who must have the lowest IQ score on Earth.

Yet you all (American Christians) insist that you have the right to assume you're right and deny human rights to people you don't agree with (gays & marriage).

What Human "right" are we American Christians deigning to Gays? The "right" to marry? Marriage, in the untitled states is a legal contract between three parties, the Government being one of them. Marriage is not a right. You should never ever call another person a simpleton when you don't have the slightest understanding of the subject.

You and the other cognitive challenged pea brains are not talking about rights. You are talking about Government endorsement. You want the government to tell you what marriage is and who can get married. On the other hand, people with high cognitive function want the Government out of our private lives which means we believe people (yes even gays) have the RIGHT to form any type of relationships they want WITHOUT government endorsement or approval. We are the true defenders of rights. You and people like you don't have the ability to differentiate between rights and privileges. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a contract that must be licensed. You need permission from the government to get married which makes it a privilege.. You do not need permission to exercise a right.

You are asking the Government for permission for gays to marry. It has nothing to do with rights

Again I reiterate, You of all people should never question the IQ of others. You lack even a basic fundamental understanding of rights.

The government should enforce contracts between couples, but should not engage in defining what 'marriage' is as that is a fundamentally religious institution. Let each faith decide that for themselves.

And I know marriage predates the establishment of formal religions, but so what? Shamen and priests predate formal religions too and were still asked to give their blessings in the new couple.

As for Obama's crap; I was considering voting for him, but no way now. I will never vote for anyone who supports homosexual marriage in any way shape or form, but civil unions are fine by me.

I really dont care who buggers who, but I dont want to pay for it or have mygovoernment endorse that perverted shit.

Ron should STFU : The "government" SHOULD do customs control and census, and NO ONE from ANY "Church" should have ANY say over who does what with WHO. Christ Himself would kick most 'Christian's' asses for getting it SO wrong.